No way this should be dismissed

Exhibit 5 gets worse.

James Comey, from his burner gmail with his alias Reinhold Niebuhr, states:

to me

No need. At this point it would shouting into the wind. Some day they will figure it out. And as Jack and Ben point out, my decision will be one a president elect Clinton… pic.twitter.com/8tdx74YoHo

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 3, 2025

Exhibit 10 shows FBI special government employee Daniel Richman (aka "Michael Garcia") is leaking--as an anonymous source--to New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt on behalf of then-FBI Director James Comey.

Comey testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee he never did this. pic.twitter.com/zSkOrEPLwq

— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) November 3, 2025

All of these were obviously the target of the unlawful raid on Mar-a-Lago, that were moved prior to the intrusion.
Don't know why we keep having to pretend they're "found" in "burn bags".

— Matthew Thomason (@Matthew56193629) November 4, 2025

John Solomon joined Hannity to discuss the “five bombshells” revealed in Lindsey Halligan’s court filing today against James Comey.

1. While massaging the media about Clinton’s personal email scandal, Comey was using personal email himself.

2. He expected Hillary to win and… pic.twitter.com/yiVHS4UK1s

— TheStormHasArrived (@TheStormRedux) November 4, 2025

Comeys attorney on the phone with the DOJ right now.. pic.twitter.com/Qt1h3VMXEZ

— Jericho (@JerichoXVI) November 4, 2025

Have to confess I have always been confused about a defendant trying to use "vindictive prosecution" the proper term for which is "malicious prosecution" which is a civil claim, could be converted into a criminal defense by just changing an adjective.

It was not a criminal defense, it is a civil claim for damages. HOWEVER, the way Comey and James have invoked the same so-called criminal defense did open up a brand new can of worms as we are seeing. So not only is there little legal basis for it, it is also very poor legal strategy.

It is both a civil claim that can be filed and also a mechanism to try to get a criminal action dismissed. Vindictive prosecution is the correct name on the criminal side

Quote:

---

To punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation "of the most basic sort." Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363, 98 S.Ct. 663, 668, 54 L.Ed.2d 604. In a series of cases beginning with North Carolina v. Pearce and culminating in Bordenkircher v. Hayes, the Court has recognized this basicand itself uncontroversialprinciple. For while an individual certainly may be penalized for violating the law, he just as certainly may not be punished for exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right

---

US v Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982)


I don't think it fits here based on what we have seen, but it is a real defense people can and do make outside of this case.

Quote:

---

For while an individual certainly may be penalized for violating the law, he just as certainly may not be punished for exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right

---

As you said, that doesn't remotely fit here nor in James' cases. So again, very poor legal strategy. OTOH, our federal judiciary is so poorly educated in the law, even legal BS still flies.

In Comey's case, his lawyer, Fitzgerald, interposed it to deflect from his own conflicts of interest as an unindicted co-conspirator.

It's just a means to muddy the waters in the court of public opinion and the courtroom. Same as him using Fitzgerald as an attorney to be able to make things off-limits.

It's a great move in a corrupt justice system.

.@Comey handwritten notes and emails shaping media narrative are fascinating but previously known @FBI @FBIDirectorKash

In the new DOJ court filing, the FBI electronic communication or EC is a major headline. 

Taken together, these records reinforce a fact pattern of alleged… https://t.co/Z7EIjRVDFR pic.twitter.com/E2NP5pHlws

— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) November 4, 2025

Catherine "Highlighter" Herridge remains one of the most thorough journalists out there.

It amazes me, in a good way, how many of these journalists are now back to essentially freelance, which is how much of journalism was.

Corporate "captive" journalist are paid talking heads pushing a corporate directive.

And as I said from the beginning, Comey is going to jail (unless he flips).

Also, could all be a ploy to gum up the works as the case handles all these motions to delay long enough hoping for D administration. Or just sounds nice for them to the public.

Vindictive Prosecution, conflicted council, etc.

Maybe I am totally off base.

Not off base at all. I think you hit the nail right on the head.

Quote:

---

Taken together, these records reinforce a fact pattern of alleged obstruction and broader conspiracy.

---

Superceding indictment incoming?

Is there a statute of limitations problem?

He needs to be indicted on his handwriting alone...I can only read about 3 words of that chicken scratch.

hammerhead said:

---

He needs to be indicted on his handwriting alone...I can only read about 3 words of that chicken scratch.

---

Probably what they'll use in his defense, claiming the writing doesn't mean what DOJ says it does because it is so poorly written.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Is there a statute of limitations problem?

---

Maybe DoJ can get a secret order tolling limitations like they did with Manafort.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Taken together, these records reinforce a fact pattern of alleged obstruction and broader conspiracy.

---

Superceding indictment incoming?

---

I tell you what, you may be on to something. Even though no superseding indictment has showed up yet that updated charging document that added counts strengthening the existing ones has been filed today, your legendary spidey senses have fueled speculation in me for sure that one could be forthcoming. And court filing by the prosecutors on yesterday prompted by Comey's dismissal bid damn sure unveiled new evidence from Comey's personal emails, handwritten notes, and documents recovered from "burn bags" hidden on the 7th floor. This new filing, which includes over 100 pages of exhibits, highlights even more contradictions in Comey's prior testimony and so your spidey senses are like right on target about expanded charges.

how is it that Comey has been indicted-

but Brennan and Strozk and Page are still eating out at the best restaurants in DC?!

HTownAg98 said:

---

Is there a statute of limitations problem?

---

No

This date on these handwritten notes is damning to Comey

LMCane said:

---

how is it that Comey has been indicted-

but Brennan and Strozk and Page are still eating out at the best restaurants in DC?!

---

Patience Grasshopper

aggiehawg said:

---

Have to confess I have always been confused about a defendant trying to use "vindictive prosecution" the proper term for which is "malicious prosecution" which is a civil claim, could be converted into a criminal defense by just changing an adjective.

It was not a criminal defense, it is a civil claim for damages. HOWEVER, the way Comey and James have invoked the same so-called criminal defense did open up a brand new can of worms as we are seeing. So not only is there little legal basis for it, it is also very poor legal strategy.

---

they are wanting the court of public opinion and depending on Trump hate!

Quote:

---

they are wanting the court of public opinion and depending on Trump hate!

---

That is certainly the spin the propaganda arm of the DNC will put out there.

captkirk said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Is there a statute of limitations problem?

---

No

---

Well that settles it! Lol


The actual answer is that there could be. We will have to wait and see what's in any superseding indictment that might come down. Generally, if you broaden the charges, you can't use the original indictment date as the date for determining whether limitations apply.

So "stay tuned"!

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

AnScAggie said:

---

For those of us not familiar enough with the legal system, what does it mean that the indictment is about Richman and not McCabe?

---

Well, it means that the indictment cannot be based on his testimony from September 30, 2020. He was not questioned about Richman at that hearing, and all the questions Cruz asked were in reference to McCabe, so those questions cannot be the basis for an indictment that he lied on that day regarding Richman.

---

You better go back and watch the testimony again. Crus was very clever in how he set Comey up to perjure himself. The first time he asked "So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak? And if Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct?" , and Comey replied "Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today." Then Cruz asked two irrelevant questions, and Comey denied both the Cruz circled back and asked Comey point blank, "As you sit here today it's your testimony that you never approved anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source to the press" Comey replied, "No sir I did not"

https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/j9ER5KSiuEmz6WREHd2AxnYBDiAqEMxLGWltyLou7U6bH1jv8R_3v0bDOgkZ5MKP__1ynpHiqaSlsWaeP_5CjPRLJ1k?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=6770.1

Cruz set him up the first time to assume he was referring to McCabe as the anonymous source, but the when he circled back he was very clear and Comey denied it.

---

For what it's worth, if Cruz was trying to "set him up" to commit a crime, then it could totally backfire considering what he is charged with requires "knowingly and willfully" making a false statement. If it was just making a false statement, tricking Comey into making a false statement would be brilliant, but if your questions are not straightforward, it sure does make it difficult to provide the statement (even if false) was made willfully and knowingly.

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

This date on these handwritten notes is damning to Comey

---

Looks like notes from a meeting and the names and initials are notes from who was speaking (JB - Brennan?), David? Mitch(scribbled out)?, Kerry (John Kerry?). At least that's how I often take meeting notes. Sure would like to know who all was in that meeting.

unmade bed said:

---

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

AnScAggie said:

---

For those of us not familiar enough with the legal system, what does it mean that the indictment is about Richman and not McCabe?

---

Well, it means that the indictment cannot be based on his testimony from September 30, 2020. He was not questioned about Richman at that hearing, and all the questions Cruz asked were in reference to McCabe, so those questions cannot be the basis for an indictment that he lied on that day regarding Richman.

---

You better go back and watch the testimony again. Crus was very clever in how he set Comey up to perjure himself. The first time he asked "So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak? And if Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct?" , and Comey replied "Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today." Then Cruz asked two irrelevant questions, and Comey denied both the Cruz circled back and asked Comey point blank, "As you sit here today it's your testimony that you never approved anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source to the press" Comey replied, "No sir I did not"

https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/j9ER5KSiuEmz6WREHd2AxnYBDiAqEMxLGWltyLou7U6bH1jv8R_3v0bDOgkZ5MKP__1ynpHiqaSlsWaeP_5CjPRLJ1k?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=6770.1

Cruz set him up the first time to assume he was referring to McCabe as the anonymous source, but the when he circled back he was very clear and Comey denied it.

---

For what it's worth, if Cruz was trying to "set him up" to commit a crime, then it could totally backfire considering what he is charged with requires "knowingly and willfully" making a false statement. If it was just making a false statement, tricking Comey into making a false statement would be brilliant, but if your questions are not straightforward, it sure does make it difficult to provide the statement (even if false) was made willfully and knowingly.

---

Obviously you didn't read the transcript or watch the video because it was very straight forward and he made him clarify it and say it twice

Do you think Comey was truthful about his role in all of this? Do you think what he did (leaking to shape the narrative in the press) is legal?

New: The judge in the Comey case has ordered DOJ to turn over all transcripts/recordings connected to Lindsay Halligan’s grand jury presentation after the DOJ tried to avoid doing that.

“The Government is directed to submit, no later than Wednesday, November 5, 2025, at 5:00 pm,…

— Ken Dilanian (@DilanianMSNBC) November 4, 2025

unmade bed said:

---

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

jacketman03 said:

---

AnScAggie said:

---

For those of us not familiar enough with the legal system, what does it mean that the indictment is about Richman and not McCabe?

---

Well, it means that the indictment cannot be based on his testimony from September 30, 2020. He was not questioned about Richman at that hearing, and all the questions Cruz asked were in reference to McCabe, so those questions cannot be the basis for an indictment that he lied on that day regarding Richman.

---

You better go back and watch the testimony again. Crus was very clever in how he set Comey up to perjure himself. The first time he asked "So your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak? And if Mr. McCabe, if he says contrary, is not telling the truth, is that correct?" , and Comey replied "Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today." Then Cruz asked two irrelevant questions, and Comey denied both the Cruz circled back and asked Comey point blank, "As you sit here today it's your testimony that you never approved anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source to the press" Comey replied, "No sir I did not"

https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/j9ER5KSiuEmz6WREHd2AxnYBDiAqEMxLGWltyLou7U6bH1jv8R_3v0bDOgkZ5MKP__1ynpHiqaSlsWaeP_5CjPRLJ1k?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=6770.1

Cruz set him up the first time to assume he was referring to McCabe as the anonymous source, but the when he circled back he was very clear and Comey denied it.

---

For what it's worth, if Cruz was trying to "set him up" to commit a crime, then it could totally backfire considering what he is charged with requires "knowingly and willfully" making a false statement. If it was just making a false statement, tricking Comey into making a false statement would be brilliant, but if your questions are not straightforward, it sure does make it difficult to provide the statement (even if false) was made willfully and knowingly.

---

There was no trickery if one understands plain english. ANYONE is pretty clear

Quote:

---

"The Government is directed to submit, no later than Wednesday, November 5, 2025, at 5:00 pm, for in camera review, a complete Transcript and/or recording of all statements made by the indictment signer to the grand jury on September 25, 2025, to include statements made prior to and after the testimony of the witness and during the presentation of the three-count and subsequent two-count indictments. IT IS SO ORDERED."

---

WTH? Grand jury proceedings are secret and there are very limited specific exceptions to that secrecy Nor does the judge even say those records would be filed under seal..Again, WTH?

I thought you were the one saying it was a "very clever set-up" by Cruz?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Do you think Comey was truthful about his role in all of this? Do you think what he did (leaking to shape the narrative in the press) is legal?

---

Hopefully there will be a trial, and I'll let you know after that.